Ed Page On Facebook: How About Hillary For VP?

Tom Nash: Hillary has found her niche. Why would she want to play second fiddle to Barry and become invisible. While not a fan of hers, she has done more than a credible job in her current role!

Jeff Clark: Yes ... Secretary Clinton would be an astounding choice for VP... she has her finger on the pulse of foriegn affairs (I don't totally 100% of the time agree with her) and can trump anybody the Republicans can field ... excepting [Colin] Powell, who is not pleased with Republican doctrine.

Robert Strasdauskas: The question assumes that a second Obama administration would be desirable. Frankly, I'm tired of the Clintons, the Bushes, the Obamas, the Kennedys and the rest of our elite ruling class, whether they ride an elaphant or a jackass.

J Michael Green: Ed, I like this day-dreaming that you have posed here. However, there is a problem. Vice President Biden is alive and well and poses no real political threat to the president. I remember when this idea was proposed in June of 2008, it was a wildly popular idea among Democrats. The only way I see this possibility would be if Biden bows out. I don't see that. He is probably more qualified to be president than the president or current secretary of state. I think a Biden presidency would have had different results in his first year than our current president, no offense intended. Biden had a reputation for getting things done in a very quiet way. He has also been very important getting some of the first-year items passed. So this possibility is remote.

Cj Bernabucci: Hillary would be a better choice for president!

Mark Pappa: They would clash and contradict each other in their fight for the spotlight.

Diane Mongold: It's the only move that MIGHT get him re-elected!

Joe Menchetti: Can she be prez instead?!

James Pavlick: She would likely be an improvement on Joe Biden (less gaffe-prone), but our next vice president will be Sen. Marco Rubio.

Ed Page: I like Mrs. Clinton as a VP pick. She adds a lot more to Obama's candidacy than Mr. Biden, who contributes little to the ticket at this point. Hillary would help energize the base and attract women's votes — and the negatives that she would inspire as the lead candidate would not be a factor. She would make history and be positioned for a run for the presidency in 2016. What's not to like?

Brooke Jackson: The only thing I don't like about your proposal is that post-election, her talents are wasted in a powerless position. She adds more value to the administration in her present role and is equally well-positioned to run in 2016, if not more so, although she has previously indicated she wasn't interested in doing so. The real question here is whether the president can win without her on the ticket and I believe he can.

Pam Shorey: I think Hillary on Obama's ticket would be like a bad actor facing a garbage-throwing audience. The conservatives love to hate her. Their personal nastiness toward her is quite predictable.

John Porriello: Why are you throwing Biden under the bus? He is doing a fine job. At least it keeps him out of trouble.

Cornelius J Ryan: Republicans attacking Republicans. It doesn't get any better than this.

Dawn Cooper:The unfortunate implementation of the circular firing squad. Issues that will no doubt be raised by Obama, et al., along with his lament of "income inequality." Fortunately the majority of Americans feel that income inequality is an acceptable part of our economic system. The rest of Americans need to be educated.

Diane Ballou: Reminds me of the Russian Revolution. The working class against the czar. Then the rise of the Communist Party. We all know how that worked out. I don't like any of this pitting one class against the other. Nasty business and un-American.

Mario Hasz: This cultural war being waged against Mitt is an unintentional result of the partisan Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) that created the ability to wage these wars. What was planned to be the Republicans "silver bullet" to control the democratic process exploded in the chamber the first time they tried to use it.

Pam Bergren: Income inequality has nothing to do with the argument! It is the inequality of the RATE one must pay to the government that is unacceptable! Why should those who bring in so much every year merely give anywhere from 0-15% to taxes? While the rest of us pay anywhere up to 25-30%?

Kevin White: I think everybody else should pay more taxes and leave me out of it.

James Pavlick: Dr. Krauthammer is precisely correct. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Mitt Romney (Romney care, flip-flopping, etc.) but being a successful capitalist is not one of them. Newt is totally out of line using Occupy Wall Street rhetoric to tear down a fellow Republican.